When President Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani spoke at the United Nations on Tuesday, each used a phrase that is key to any nuclear deal.
“The age of zero–sum games is over,” Rouhani declared. “This is not a zero–sum endeavor,” said Obama (referring to prospects for a deal on Syria, but implying the same approach toward the nuclear issue).
The phrase zero–sum game, loosely interpreted, means that for me to win, you must lose. There is no middle ground. But getting beyond zero–sum politics requires a minimum level of trust, or an ability to verify what the other side has promised. So far both are lacking between Washington and Tehran.
Obama’s speech, which specified that the United States doesn’t seek Iranian regime change and respects the right of the Iranian people to peaceful nuclear energy, indicates he’s open to a reasonable level of bargaining. But Rouhani’s remarks indicate that Tehran may still view compromise on the nuclear issue – or on Syria – as an unacceptable American victory. In other words, as a zero–sum game.
Let me say up front that I believe it is essential for Obama to test Iran’s bona fides. It would benefit the entire world if Tehran were willing to provide proof that it’s no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. We need to know whether Iran is ready to relinquish the equipment, facilities, and supply of fissile material that could enable it to break out a weapon in weeks or months.
Moreover, it’s clear that the harsh sanctions instituted under Obama – which have slashed Iran’s oil sales and crippled its access to foreign currency – have convinced the regime, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, to give Rouhani a broad mandate for negotiations. We will soon see whether he has a green light to limit Iran’s nuclear program, or will demand sanctions relief up front, while offering only cosmetic changes that could easily be reversed.
Contrary to pre–speech hopes, Rouhani revealed no details on the U.N. podium.
What disturbed me more than Rouhani’s lack of detail, however, was his take on Syria. While criticizing the United States and its gulf allies for “militarizing” the conflict, he claimed that Iran believes there is “no military solution.” This carries cynicism to a new extreme.
Iran is funding, arming, and training Bashar al–Assad’s Shiite militias, while airlifting tons of weapons and ammunition into Damascus’ airport. Qassem Suleimani, the head of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards Quds Force, is said to be virtually running Assad’s war against Sunni rebels.
Suleimani has summoned thousands of Quds Force operatives from Iran, as well as Iraqi Shiite militiamen, to fight alongside Assad’s militias. He has also summoned thousands of fighters from Hezbollah, Iran’s Shiite ally in Lebanon; they have won critical battles for Assad.
According to Filkins, some consider Suleimani to be the most powerful operative in the Mideast.
In reality, the United States and Iran share common interests in stabilizing the region. Neither wants to see Sunni jihadis take over large parts of Syria or Iraq. Both want to ban chemical weapons, which were deployed to horrific effect by Saddam Hussein against Iranian soldiers. And, in truth, neither Iran nor its Hezbollah proxy can afford a direct war with Israel.
These common interests could provide the basis for a formula to end the Syrian conflict. Yet Rouhani’s speech gave little hint that Iran is ready to go beyond the zero–sum strategy of using Shiite forces to try to dominate Mideast politics in an arc from Lebanon through parts of the Arab Gulf.
Unless Iran can dispel fears about its regional intentions, it will be hard to engender the trust necessary to conclude a nuclear agreement. Rouhani is correct that the time for zero–sum politics is over. But he needs to follow his own advice.
Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial–board member for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers may write to her at: Philadelphia Inquirer, P.O. Box 8263, Philadelphia, Pa. 19101, or by email at trubinphillynews.com.